Merged So there was melted steel

[Grizzly Bear]

These are not chunks of sidewalk or decking.

MM

Do read very carefully.

These are examples of fused molten steel, concrete, rebar, etc into a single object.

They are floor slabs from the interior space; nothing more, nothing less. These floor slabs were little more than 4" thick light weight concrete slabs with standard rebar and corrugated metal decking; in other words they are composite floor slabs. Picture Link: CLICK

They aren't "meteorites" nor will they ever be. They're easily identifiable for what they actually are

It took extreme heat to create this.

The "fusion" was created through huge compressive forces, not heat. And the little bit of metal from the underside of the composite slab + rebar is at worst "crumpled" not "melted." AE911truth is lying in your face, and they had to create a silly strawman to do it

 

[A W Smith]

We know they are embedded. Unless you have xray vision, you can only assume no melting has occurred.

MM

Note: Stike-out added by A W Smith

Fixed that for ya, therefore you have no physical evidence that your "meteorites" were the result of molten steel.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Until you have the professional credentials and can produce contradictory test results, you have zero argument that disproves the findings of those accredited scientists.

Attacking the honesty of the publisher does not debunk or prove dishonesty in the work of the authors.

MM

It is the twoof movement like you who are claiming that they have a peer reviewed paper and claim that this is of itself an indication of the veracity of their claim.
If, as has been shown, the said publisher and peer review are a fraud then any claims regarding the paper are null and void.
Anything published by Bentham has no more respectability than anything that, say, you write on this forum.
The paper itself is proof of the authors incompetence and/or fraud, it being published in a vanity journal is just icing on the cake.

 

[NoahFence]

The important point that you are missing, is that in their combined professional opinion, based on what they had observed, the FDNY Chiefs had no expectation that the WTC Twin Towers were in danger of collapse.

In a nutshell, they did not believe that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were sufficient to bring about a collapse.

Translation: In their professional opinion, It would take a pre-planned demolition for such collapses to be possible.

Or I guess several more aircraft impacts.

MM

They didn't observe the most damaged parts of the buildings. I think there was some thought that it was both unsafe to enter those areas, and those pesky humans were in the way and getting them out was more important than making sure some idiots on the interwebz could be proven wrong 10 years later.

 

[NoahFence]

MM

How did the rebar melt and resolidify into perfectly identifiable rebar?

 

[jaydeehess]

A steel beam is identifiable.



This method could be applied to any eyewitness account:

"It could be appear that <blank> but it could have just been <blank>."

But that wasn't the report. The report was a steel beam, glowing red hot and dripping molten at its end. There is nothing unclear about that report.

deja vu

I had this dream that you posted this exact post a few days ago and that several people responded to it then.

I must be psychic.

 

[jaydeehess]

Unlike you, I at least have a published paper

Which might as well have been simply posted online as it would have received the same amount of peer review.

backed up by reputable scientists who have tested the red chips and accept a conclusion that they are thermitic.

Who inexplicably did not do the single most importatnt test of self oxidation to support that conclusion simply because they already believed it was thermite.

You have nothing but heavily biased, amateur opinions to act in rebuttal.

When professionals publish a paper that specifically refutes the claim made in Dr. Harriet et Al's paper, then you have a basis for questioning my proof.

Primer paint is just not cutting it!

MM

As much peer review has been conducted on the claims of the detractors of Harrit's paper as there was for Garrit's paper.
Yet you manage to buy into Harrit's conclusion based on insufficient data
and preconceived notion of what the material was.

 

[jaydeehess]

MM

How did the rebar melt and resolidify into perfectly identifiable rebar?

How did concrete melt and cover a hand gun without melting the hand gun into a blob?

 

[Dog Town]

How did concrete melt and cover a hand gun without melting the hand gun into a blob?

Cognitive dissonance for a thousand, please, Alex.

 

[Miragememories]

"The Official Story is a theory."

"Right. You don't know proper science. A theory is a proven hypothesis. Your hypothesis is the discombobulated Official Truther Myth."

"A theory is; a supposition, or a system of ideas intended to explain something".

A hypothesis is; "also a supposition. Or a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

A supposition is; "an uncertain belief".

So, a theory IS NOT A PROVEN HYPOTHESIS!

It would appear that you don't know science or the english language."

MASSIVE FAIL AGAIN! No soup for you!"

"Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public."
http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

Well apparently you wish to draw a distinction between a "theory" and a "proven theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
There are many kinds of theories and many ways to evaluate them.

A theory by itself is not a proven hypothesis.

A proven theory is accepted as a proven hypothesis primarily because it is peer-reviewed and tests well.

The Official Story is not a proven theory. It has not been verified, nor has it ever been shown to be accepted as true, at least not as universally as say Newton's Theories.

I guess a better understanding would be created if I referred to the Official Story, and my explanation for the molten steel, as both being based on a hypothesis.

MM

 

[LSSBB]

Well apparently you wish to draw a distinction between a "theory" and a "proven theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
There are many kinds of theories and many ways to evaluate them.

A theory by itself is not a proven hypothesis.

A proven theory is accepted as a proven hypothesis primarily because it is peer-reviewed and tests well.

The Official Story is not a proven theory. It has not been verified, nor has it ever been shown to be accepted as true, at least not as universally as say Newton's Theories.

I guess a better understanding would be created if I referred to the Official Story, and my explanation for the molten steel, as both being based on a hypothesis.

MM

All I know is what I see of your case is one not so rigorously peer reviewed paper and a bunch of suppositions.

 

[Dog Town]

Well apparently you wish to draw a distinction between a "theory" and a "proven theory".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
There are many kinds of theories and many ways to evaluate them.

A theory by itself is not a proven hypothesis.

A proven theory is accepted as a proven hypothesis primarily because it is peer-reviewed and tests well.

The Official Story is not a proven theory. It has not been verified, nor has it ever been shown to be accepted as true, at least not as universally as say Newton's Theories.

I guess a better understanding would be created if I referred to the Official Story, and my explanation for the molten steel, as both being based on a hypothesis.

MM

Do you get dizzy spinning like that?

 

[Miragememories]

"Until you have the professional credentials and can produce contradictory test results, you have zero argument that disproves the findings of those accredited scientists.

Attacking the honesty of the publisher does not debunk or prove dishonesty in the work of the authors."

"Uh sorry but it does prove that it cannot be said to be legitimately peer reviewed and cannot be called as such.

We also have over a hundred papers published about the collapses in proper peer reviewed journals about various aspects of the collapses and absolutely none of them at all support truthers. Funny how you latch onto your one terrible publication in a terrible journal Bentham that likes to hire people that aren't even qualified in the fields they're meant to be be working in, and yet you arent prepared to accept that you're still a fringe 1%, and thats being VERY generous."

Well if you have over a hundred related peer-reviewed papers Edx, it should not prove too difficult to find one that debunks their findings?

MM

 

[Miragememories]

DOH!!! Not the meteorites again! Concrete people... concrete... How do you miss that it's CONCRETE?

"Of course there is no denying the existence of concrete in these objects.

The term meteorite has been applied for good reason.

These are examples of fused molten steel, concrete, rebar, etc into a single object.

It took extreme heat to create this.

These are not chunks of sidewalk or decking."

"Do read very carefully.

They are floor slabs from the interior space; nothing more, nothing less. These floor slabs were little more than 4" thick light weight concrete slabs with standard rebar and corrugated metal decking; in other words they are composite floor slabs. Picture Link: CLICK

They aren't "meteorites" nor will they ever be. They're easily identifiable for what they actually are

The "fusion" was created through huge compressive forces, not heat. And the little bit of metal from the underside of the composite slab + rebar is at worst "crumpled" not "melted." AE911truth is lying in your face, and they had to create a silly strawman to do it"

So you are saying this;

Is actually this before the Towers collapsed and somehow did not pulverize these slabs.

That is a rather interesting hypothesis.

Sorry I didn't have any pics with rebar but the idea is there.

MM

 

[The Platypus]

boring troll is boring.

You've got about 40 unanswered questions.

Don't liars usually avoid questions?

 

[triforcharity]

A steel beam is identifiable.

Correct. However, a molten substance could and is often mistaken for another metal.

This method could be applied to any eyewitness account:

"It could be appear that <blank> but it could have just been <blank>."

Correct. However, when there is no other evidence of molten STEEL, and lots of other metals that would be EXPECTED to be molten at ~1800 deg. F, we must logically conclude that it is in fact not steel.

But that wasn't the report. The report was a steel beam, glowing red hot and dripping molten at its end. There is nothing unclear about that report.

Do you have the picture? I would love to see you post the picture.

And yes, it is unclear how the person identified the molten substance as steel, and not one of the dozens of other metals that would have been found in abundance in the WTC towers, and melt at >1,800 deg. F

Do run along now and get that picture.

 

[NoahFence]

The Official Story is not a proven theory. It has not been verified, nor has it ever been shown to be accepted as true, at least not as universally as say Newton's Theories.

Too funny....

 

[Robrob]

Is actually this before the Towers collapsed and somehow did not pulverize these slabs.

You're the ones who have been claiming the WTC was "pulverized" - not us.

 

[triforcharity]

The important point that you are missing, is that in their combined professional opinion, based on what they had observed, the FDNY Chiefs had no expectation that the WTC Twin Towers were in danger of collapse.

In a nutshell, they did not believe that the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires were sufficient to bring about a collapse.

Translation: In their professional opinion, It would take a pre-planned demolition for such collapses to be possible.

Or I guess several more aircraft impacts.

MM

False conclusion logical fallacy. Not ONE of those chiefs believe that the ONLY way for those towers to collapse was through controlled demolition. Not one. You're welcome to contact them if you want. Most of them are still employed with the FDNY.

Don't attribute an opinion to them, that you have NO way of backing up. This is called lying.

 

[triforcharity]

Read again.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
"Despite his lack of knowledge of what had happened to the South Tower, a chief in the process of evacuating the North Tower lobby sent out an order within a minute of the collapse: "Command to all units in Tower 1, evacuate the building." Another chief from the North Tower lobby soon followed with an additional evacuation order issued on tactical."



Maybe the 9/11 Commission should have gotten their facts from the Naudet brothers?

As much as I dislike the outcome of their investigation, I see no reason for the 9/11 Commission to be dishonest about their FDNY evacuation findings.

MM

Hilite mine.

Do you see the problem with the sentence that you posted?

He ordered the evacuation of ALL units IN the BUILDING. Not all units in the LOBBY.

You're quotmining again.

Suprise suprise......